I'm glad you mention the Devilly and Spence (1999) article. Let's look at the findings. CBT was "more effective than EMDR at all assessments with a growing, relative, efficacy over time" (p. 143). 10/12 patients did not meet criteria for PTSD in the CBT condition whereas only 4/11 patients did not meet criteria for PTSD in the EMDR condition at post-assessment.

You will inevitably then ask: Was the rater independent? "The independent rater was a practising clinician, associated with neither the EMDR institute nor Foa's research group. This rater had extensive experience in both EMDR (trained to level II) and CBT, and the researchers had no previous links with the rater other than casual acquaintance and therapeutic reputation. Indeed the rater was based in a different city" (p. 134).

Since the results did not favor EMDR's superiority if is standard fair for EMDRers to cry treatment fidelity fowl. So: "Both therapists were trained in EMDR to the advanced standard with therapist A being trained by Shapiro in 1992…Therapist B was trained by the EMDR Institute in 1996 and was very positive and enthusiastic with regards to EMDR, an attitude fostered by the directors of this research throughout the study" (p.134). Furthermore, videotapes were made of the EMDR sessions and fidelity was independently rated as good based on the EMDR treatment fidelity rating scale. You can now see why I made the claim earlier that when EMDR is tested in rigorously controlled studies such as that by Devilly and Spence the overstated effect sizes disappear, as well as the EMDR's superiority and efficiency.

As for Don's supposed ad hominems. When evidence has been presented on this list by myself and others that does not support the outrageous claims by EMDR therapists, many of you seem to fall back on the classic deflection of criticism: to paraphrase "I have personal experience that it works like I say it does even if the data don't support this. You are just being mean." An argument is recognized as ad rem when one makes natural and logical observations about a person's competence and credentials when the "evidence" is testimony.

I feel that these and other comments by critics fall into the ad rem and are therefore logical arguments and not fallacious ad hominems. In other words, the testimony is only as good as the source and even credible sources can be wrong. If you are going to speak of your personal experience your credentials and competency are fair game to debate. When someone has a vested interest (ie, a monetary and face saving interest) these motivations are fair game for debate. When independent observations do not find the same things as the source, then the source is called into question.

This is how science works. If these results with EMDR are so robust then independent investigators would not be finding such poor results and contradictory evidence time and time again in controlled within study comparisons of EMDR and other treatments. Remember when some scientists announced they discovered fusion a few years back? When others tried to replicate the results they couldn't. The original researchers did not try to say that the other scientists must have been doing the experiment wrong if they did not get the results. When this was discovered the original scientists apologized and admitted they were wrong.

The argument Francine makes is that because they didn't find good results for EMDR then they did it wrong. This is false and circular logic. If CBT would fall on its face I would not lose my job, my career, or my pride. Can Francine, and others who have built a career on EMDR, say the same?